Do the Clintons know how to win a presidential election?

[Jersey Devil]

You're goddamned right they do!

WTF else do you need to know? Are you all going to wait 40 years in the desert waiting to be taken to the land of milk and honey by some leader who hasn't emerged yet or who is on the scene but has never yet exhibited the qualities needed to do the job or are you going to get behind someone who knows how to kick ass like the Clintons?

So talk all you want about the other pretenders, how this one has a wart on this issue and that one has a blemish on that issue, nitpick away about how this one or that one is not perfect on the issue that you consider most important, whine about how this one or that one is going to sell us out, how the DLC is Republican Lite and all that shit.

Me, I am going to go with someone I think can kick ass right now and put a Democrat back in the White House. Sure, maybe she won't be perfect, maybe she won't go out on a limb and will "triangulate" to get elected but, fuck, she will get elected and she won't be no fucking wingnut!

I have made up my mind.

At ease.

(on edit) PS - At the minimum, you know you are not going to get any assoholes like Roberts on the Supremes. That alone should be reason to get in gear. Let's win an election. Then we can talk about who is perfect.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. While there is an elegant expedience to your notion ......

I disagree that she can win. Just because Bill won is no predictor that Hillary can. Love him or hate him, WJC is the consummate political animal. A gifted - maybe genius - political animal.

Hillary .... not so much ...... and in my personal view, it shows.

Don't misconstrue this as Hillary bashing. I like her. I respect her. I admire her. I just don't think she can do it on the presidential scene in 08.

[Jersey Devil]

2. I didn't intend to be "elegant"

Though I can be if I have a mind to do so, I intended to be as blunt as possible.

It seems to me that most people here are looking for a candidate who can walk on water, someone perfect, who will be accepted as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

That's not what we need. What we need is someone who is immersed from head to toe in politics and political savagery. Someone who will not hesitate to bite the head off a chicken if needed or punch the crap out of an opponent who is woozy and off balance.

None of the lightweights I have seen discussed so far has anywhere near the balls Hillary has and the quality most needed - someone who will go for a head shot without hesitating.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Elegant was used in the sense that .....

........ E=MC² is elegant in its simplicity. Not elegant in terms of which gown one wears to the ball.

I don't disagree with your basic logic .... I just don't think she can do it.

[Jersey Devil]

11. Why? Because she is a woman?

That seems to be the unsaid thing that no one here, at least no proper liberal, will dare to utter.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Because, first and foremost, she's a lightning rod for vitriol and hate

As we love to hate idiot son, the right loves to hate the Clintons. Even generally reasonable people can not and will not forgive the infamous oval office blowjob. I hear this every day. Because of that, their overall hatred of the Clintons stays in the fore.

I don't like it. You don't like it. But not liking it doesn't change it. Don't believe me? Just ask a friend of your own who is a generally reasonable person and who also leans right. not hard right. just leans right. You'll see the blowjob was not forgotten and the stain is on Hillary nearly as much as on Bill.

As to her being a woman, I also think that's a factor against her. Again ... probably not for you. And for certain not for me. But for many voters out there in this 'time of war' a woman just won't fly.

Again, I don't disagree with your logic. I just don't think Hillary can get the job done.

[Jersey Devil]

17. Umm, the ugly little secret emerges

Dems won't support Hill because she is a woman.

The right wingers I know dislike Hillary but it has nothing whatsoever to do with blow jobs. They dislike her because they are threatened by a woman with power.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Yanno ... arguing based on logic is fine ......

.... but arguing with spew serves no purpose.

Nowhere did I say a Dem would not support a woman. What I **did** say is that the national electorate will not suport a woman right now.

If you want to argue, perhaps it would be best to read and absorb what's being said before responding.

Or not .....

Now ..... one more time ....... I don't disagree with your basic logic .... I just don't think she can do it.

[Jersey Devil]

30. Pardon

As I said in another reply, the vinegar is flowing tonight due to the Yanks blowing a 4-0 lead, but that is for another forum.

I understand your concern, but I think that part of the problem is not just the public at large but also among Democrats. I think most of the opposition to Hill is not based on her politics but on the fear that a woman cannot win.

That might be true in some areas. Perhaps I am sheltered by living in the northeast, but it doesn't seem to be a big issue to me.

[Sparkly]

29. Oh, puleeeze.

And I say "Oh puleeeze" as a card-carrying member of NOW.

[Jersey Devil]

32. Well, I am a card carrying member too!

I have several membership cards in various organizations but that does not mean that I subscribe to all their beliefs.

Your point is what? Because you are a woman you cannot possibly be affected by a general belief amongst society that a woman cannot be elected president?

[halobeam]

7. I couldn't have said it better myself.

And I'm so tired right now, I thank you for saying it so well.

[Jersey Devil]

10. Then take a nap and get back to me

Let us know when you have something "elegant" to say.

[Larkspur]

3. Will Bill resurrect Ross Perot to run in 2008?

Perot ran in 1992 and helped siphon votes away from Bush I. Bill won with less than 50% of the vote in 1992.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Borrow that post from the freepers?

Who is gonna be your Massiah? Some forkin' general no one ever heard of or a couple of failed Dem candidates who tripped all over themselves to sound as Republican as possible?

[Larkspur]

16. I'm Pagan. I don't believe in Messiahs.

I look for leaders who represent views close to mine and have the courage to fight for core Democratic Principles. The Post-2000 Al Gore shares more of my views than does the philander Bill Clinton and his wife, who won't sacrifice her daughter to help military recruiting. Hillary was a Rockefeller Republican and unlike Howard Dean, who was one also, she never really left her roots. Dean sided with core Dem principles on civil rights and helped energize the Dem base.

If Hillary wins the Dem nomination in 2008, she'll spew a lot of Dem rhetoric, but if she gets into the White House, she'll betray Dems, just like Bill did.

But she might face more organized resistance from progressives than Bill did. Progressives, like David Sirota, are developing a PLAN -- Progressive Legislative Action Network (http://www.progressivestates.org/) -- Bush speech to ALEC shows importance of PLAN http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=7377199F-E0EC-F749-D0F2967E6ADECCA4.

[Jersey Devil]

19. Pathetic

I feel like I am in freeperland with the "philanderer" crap.

I love Al Gore, but he isn't running. If he did I would choose him first.

How exactly would Hill "betray" Dems? Would she appoint a Roberts to the Supremes? Would she choose an ambassador to the UN who wants to dismantle it? Would she state her support for anti-gay legislation or be against educational funding?

[Larkspur]

48. She still supports the Iraq War to this day and I'm not just talking about

arguing the merits of staying to fix Iraq or pull out. She supports to this day the Iraq invasion and the Iraq War is the most immoral war since Vietnam.

She also suppports oursourcing of high tech jobs to India, China, etc. Since my job is one of those that can be outsource, I'm not supporting her.

She also strongly supports Israel's apartheid policies and blames Palestinians for fighting to save their land. She's a Joe Lieberman in drag.

Like Bill, who spoke the progressive rhetoric but hurt blue collar workers with his support of Free Trade, Hillary will betray progressives in order to gain power. She already attacked progressives in her DLC speech and falsely portrayed the DLC as the ones where were wounded first by progressives and because of that, the DLC had to strke back in defense. She totaly ignored the fact that it's the DLC clowns who attack at every chance they get, progressives and Dems bucking their pro-corporate agenda. Like Bill and George Bush, Hillary is power hungary. She'll do whatever it takes to gain power, including selling out progressives & core Dem principles.

[Sparkly]

18. Did the gratuitous slap at Wesley Clark serve your argument?

:shrug:

[Jersey Devil]

20. Gratuitous?

Those who support Clark here talk as though everyone knows who he is and what he stands for when the truth is most Americans probably never have heard of him. I am sorry if that bothers you but it is the truth.

[Sparkly]

28. "Some forkin' general no one ever heard of" = a gratuitous slap in my book

If you want to talk about name recognition at this point, fine. But those words were a gratuitous slap, imho.

[Jersey Devil]

33. I apoligize for that

Sorry, that was uncalled for. I am feeling a little feisty tonight and let myself get carried away.

[musical_soul]

5. I'm sure she can win.

I'll vote for her. It's not just to vote against the Republican, but also because I think she is still progressive in most areas.

[Jersey Devil]

9. That's the entire ballgame

There won't be any Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court or Boltons as ambassador to the UN. Those things alone should make any liberal stand up and fight for her, or any other Dem nominee, with all their might.

Yet I keep seeing all this crap here about how this one or that one or the other one isn't Jesus Christ reincarnated and how some silly little pimple on their face makes them unacceptable.

I think Hill can win and think Bill can muster the energy and experience necessary to do it. I am also willing to accept anyone else who can fit that mold but so far no one else even comes close in my opinion.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Bill knew how to get Bill elected

and Hillary isn't Bill. Not by a long shot.

[Jersey Devil]

12. No, and she isn't Bush either, not by a long shot

You and I both know that if not for Hill there never would have been a Bill. She has always been the brains and that is why she is so hated by the Republicans. I think she can do it and that is why I would be more than happy to support her.

[LittleClarkie]

15. But in 2008, she won't be running against Bush

So we shall see.

She can be the brains all she wants, but without Bill's charisma, I don't know how much good it will do her.

[Jersey Devil]

22. She will be running against his legacy

Is there any difference? Isn't that how Bush 41 got elected, on RR's legacy?

[LittleClarkie]

25. Think Hackett in Ohio. I'm not sure anyone is going to want to crow

about Bush's legacy, not unless things get a whole lot better between then and now.

[election_2004]

13. Do you want the Democrats to take back the U.S. Senate?

Because it WON'T happen if Hillary is the presidential nominee at the top of the ticket. Every Democrat in the country will be baited into measuring himself/herself against Hillary as the de facto new face of the Democratic Party.

Democrats may not need the red states to win the Electoral College, but Hillary Rodham Clinton's sheer presence on the top of the ticket will hurt Democrats who are running for downticket races in red states.

Say goodbye to a ton of Democratic U.S. Senators in red and purple states!

Is that really worth the risk?

[AJH032]

24. where's the logic to that?

I've heard this claim a lot, with no reasoning to back it up. What about a Hillary presidency would stop Dems from being elected to congress? Just based on what happened in '94?

[election_2004]

31. Here's the logic....

The Far Right HATES Hillary. If she is the Dem nominee, they will mobilize GOTV efforts to smear and slander her like never seen before in the red states.

Their smear campaigns will link Democratic U.S. Senate and U.S. House candidates in those red states and conservative districts to the "EvilCommunistNazi" that is Hillary. (e.g. see Max Cleland in 2002).

Do you honestly believe that these people will just smile and say, "Ok, Hill - - you win!"

I don't think so. If she becomes president, they will want to ensure that her administration is as miserable and ineffectual as imaginable.

Thus, the negative baggage that Hillary suffers from in the red states will spill over onto the Democratic candidates in those states, as well.

If it looks like Hillary is going to win the presidency, the Far Right will settle for going all out to make a massive U.S. Senate net gain by targeting the seats they can most easily snatch up.

Say goodbye to the filibuster...for good.

[Jersey Devil]

36. Don't you understand? They will mobilize against any Democrat!

They mobilized against Gore, against Kerry and will mobilize against anyone we run. Who give a crap how much they hate Hillary because for every drop of their hate there is an equal amount of desire on our side to get her elected. She is indeed a lightening rod for both sides, but that has been our problem. They are excited and mobilized and we are NOT. With Hill both sides will come out.

[election_2004]

43. What makes you so certain....

...that a critical mass of voters outside of the rank-and-file Democrats would be especially *EXCITED* about Hillary as the nominee?

What has she DONE (proactively, not just standard constituent services) in the U.S. Senate, as far as accomplishments, that is significantly more liberal or progressive than any other Democrat who could run?

Yes, of course they are going to mobilize against whoever the Democratic nominee is. But they will go the extra mile to tarnish Hillary...they have a unique revulsion for her.

I don't know how to communicate this any more simply than that. :(

[AJH032]

37. if that logic is true...

then she won't win the presidency at all. But, if she does win the presidency, then we should be able to assume that a majority of people support her, so her presence in the white house would not be as harmful as you say.

[election_2004]

44. You're missing the point....

Let's face facts: the only way Hillary Clinton is going to win the presidency is by carrying all of the blue states plus Florida or Ohio (after all, that's what the Rah-Rah Hillary crowd keeps reminding us...)

So, given that fundamental reality, the Republicans will go full-force targeting red states and especially purple states where there are key races that could be very close and could be winnable for a given Democratic candidate (especially if they're open-seat races or retirments)...but those Democratic candidates WON'T be helped by Hillary's presence dominating the overall dynamics of the election.

We have to put the 2008 election into the context of its electoral breakdown. Harboring any other delusion is counterproductive.

[tedoll78]

21. Yup.

Whether or not she can win is another discussion, in all reality. The key issue I'm pissed about with DU is that of purity.

And on that issue, I am with you - if we wait for 100% or even 90% purity - we are screwed. While the GOP falls into lockstep and wins elections over and over again, they get their thugs onto the court, and we're left with a bigger mess to eventually clean-up. More bad legal precedents to eventually overturn. More GOP-sponsored laws to repeal. If it happens again in 2008, they end-up controlling the court until 2040.

Let me repeat that again for the whiners who seem all-too-willing to run away or stay home when they don't get their way:
the GOP will control the US Supreme Court until 2040 if they win in 2008.

Imagine that. If anything is remotely controversial, we all know that it ends-up before the court. Having control of the court is essentially the same as having The Final Word on a topic. And I for one don't want to give the Scalias of this country The Final Word on everything. Should the GOP win in 2008, things will go down like this:
1) We challenge something in court.
2) The court pretends to look at the issue.
3) The court waits six months.
4) The court then issues a ruling rubber-stamping the GOP's position.
x) Repeat this process for issue after issue. Abortion. Gay rights. Church & State. Environmental protection. All of those things we supposedly care about as progressives.

The Court must be saved. The Democratic primary process will filter-out anyone who'd even dare think of appointing anyone to the right of David Souter. And I know this is heresay on DU, but even an Evan Bayh or a Joe Lieberman would fulfill that basic requirement. While our primaries produce sane people with whom we CAN negotiate policy matters, the GOP's process will produce a blithering idiot psychopath, each and every time.

We should not be taking chances with those goons.

As for Hillary, she may not be my first choice in the primaries, but she'll damn well have it in a general election. It'd be insane for me to act otherwise.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I wish it were possible to nominate replies ........

.... cuz yours would get my vote!

The 'purity' thing is fine in an academic sense. But in a real sense it is exactly the same thing as the whole Nader thing in 2000.

[Jersey Devil]

27. Yes, that was my point though it got lost along the way

Actually, I probably would not have started off so pissed off in my post if the Yankees hadn't blown a 4-0 lead, but I agree with you.

I will accept Hill, Clark, Gore, Biden, hell, just about anyone and then tear the hell out of the Republicans rather than sit around trying to determine who is the world's most perfect liberal, which is what many here seem intent on doing.

[AJH032]

34. thank you

It's so sad to see a group of people here bash other Dems and threaten to not vote in 2008 because the nominee may not in full agreement with 100% of their positions. It's fine in the primaries, but when it comes to the general election, it's just stupid.

[election_2004]

35. Not everyone who opposes Hillary is a *purist*....

And we're talking about the Democratic primaries here, not the General Election.

I wouldn't fault anyone for giving their vote to Hillary over the likes of Frist or Allen. At the same time, my conscience will not allow me personally to reward HRC's blatant opportunism with my vote.

I don't have a problem supporting a less-than-perfect Democrat in the presidential race, even if that candidate wasn't my first-choice...but the individual candidate has to be someone whom I can give my vote to and still look at myself in the mirror at the end of the day.

[AJH032]

38. you're right

and that's what the primaries are for. But it's also true that many Dems who oppose Hillary (in the gen. election) are indeed these so-called "purists."

[election_2004]

40. I definitely know what you mean about the purists....

And I get frustrated with them too. I can't say I would have supported Bankruptcy Reform or CAFTA in the forms that the GOP pushed them through...but it doesn't make sense to apply such a strict "litmus test" to how a possible presidential candidate voted on those issues when that legislation can still be reversed.

I don't think Democrats can find a *perfect* candidate (but let's face it, neither can the Republicans!), and I'll be the first to admit that my candidate for '08 isn't perfect!

But NO ONE has presented any persuasive or cogent arguments explaining why Hillary Clinton would make the "strongest" Democratic nominee, other than empty talking points such as: "she's gutsy"..."she has 100% name recognition"...and "she has balls."

It seems to be the "Hillary is God" mentality, and it's a real turn-off. :(

[AJH032]

42. we're in agreement then

Hillary isn't my first choice (at the moment) for 2008 either, because I don't think she's the most electable (though if her husband could run again, I'd definitely support him in the primaries despite his moderate stance on a few issues). I'd definitely support her if she's our nominee though. I agree with her on a lot more than I do any Republican.

[election_2004]

45. I agree that.....

I agree with you that she would appoint better U.S. Supreme Court nominees than a right-wing zealot. In fact, I dare say that would be the ONLY good thing that would come out of her presidency (that is, whichever of her judicial nominees would actually manage to make it out of committee for a floor vote).

That's still no excuse for rewarding corruption. She hasn't done anything to DESERVE the presidency.

[tedoll78]

46. Wow,

so the only thing good would be that?

Hmm..

[election_2004]

47. Well - -

Maybe not literally. But it would be the only good thing of long-term significance to come out of her administration.

I'm thinking in terms of the bigger picture.

[tedoll78]

39. Of course..

Hillary isn't my first choice either. But I am getting tired/pissy with those threatening to run away if she wins the primaries.

I personally wouldn't be able to look in the mirror while knowing that my vote (with others like me) could've stopped the overturning of Roe, or Griswald, or Lawrence, or even Brown.

[election_2004]

41. What makes you think that....

How can you be so sure that those blue state voters who would vote third-party or for another Independent will have handed the election to a miscellaneous Republican nominee by refusing to vote for Hillary?

Or, let's say you are right - - and if the race (between Clinton and Frist/Allen/Brownback) would come that close to begin with, then perhaps the Democratic establishment should rethink it's cult-like support for Senator Clinton and reconsider the coronation that appears to be in the works?

[CWebster]

49. Well they haven't been doing a very good job

of setting up any opposition to the present state of affairs.

Why should they be rewarded as if it was still Clinton's party and only clinton's party?

No thanks. We can do better. And we deserve better.

[Q]

50. It's funny that you mentioned '40 years in the desert'...

...because that's how many years the Democrats held both houses BEFORE the Clinton's showed up to 'show us how to win elections'.

You have the absolute right to vote for whomever you like. But don't presume to lecture the rest of us who perhaps want to look at other options.

No more of these DLC pre-chosen candidates rammed down our throats...while they spread propaganda and lies about progressives and what the 'rank and file' really want.

Does the DLC really believe that the rank and file they claim to represent wants leadership that is more beholden to corporate than social welfare? Do they seriously think that the rank and file would support their anti-worker, pro-war, pro-corporate agenda?

The Democratic party has lost everything since the DLC 'took' control of the party in the 80s & 90s. And like the Neocons blaming Liberals for everything wrong with this country...the DLC can't seem to take responsibility for their insistance on forcing a losing strategy on our party.